The next 10 years does not bode well for British politics. At the European elections this year, only 22% of eligible British voters actually voted. The cash-for-honours and the MPs expenses scandals have generated widespread disillusionment. The EC predicts that in just 2 years, Britain’s national debt will increase to 88.2 per cent of GDP, and that by 2020 this could rise to 140 per cent of GDP. Meanwhile, the politics of the far-right are becoming increasingly mainstream, even prompting Labour and Tory spokespeople to co-opt their concerns on immigration, multiculturalism, and so on.

In such potentially dire circumstances, the temptation to deflect problems onto the ‘Other’ – namely, black and ethnic minority groups, particularly Muslims – will be greater. In this regard, British Muslims will have a particularly significant responsibility to engage fully in the British political system to promote social justice, public welfare, and government accountability. We will need to put in renewed efforts to show that Islamic and British values are mutually co-extensive, and that British Muslims are truly at home in British civil society.

Unfortunately, it is tempting to react in two ways: either accepting the goal of a global Islamic state while rejecting the use of violence to create it; or rejecting entirely any connection between Islam and politics. Ironically, both reactions lead us up the garden path.

Firstly, we should be very careful to remember that the sovereign nation-state is a modern invention, only coming into existence within the last two hundred odd years. Before that, states did not exist, borders were in flux, and empires based on aristocratic and dynastic rivalries used force to extract tribute from subject populations and monopolise trade. This was even more the case fourteen hundred years ago. As the Sudanese scholar Abdullahi an-Naim argues, the idea of the ‘Islamic state’ is an innovation that draws on European post-colonial discourse.

But just as it is a grave mistake to superimpose the modern nation-state onto Islam, it is an equally grave mistake to interpret this as implying that Islam is not political. As noted by Robert D Crane of the International Institute for Islamic Thought:

“In the Covenant of Madina the various autonomous tribes were incorporated in a single confederation with mutual rights and responsibilities. The Prophet called this confederation an umma or single community composed of different ethnic and religious ummas as sub-groups.

There was also a common law based on the practice of the Prophet Muhammad and the traditional laws of each religious group. The Islamic shari’a as a body of law and jurisprudence, like all the other Islamic disciplines, developed over the course of the centuries.

At the time of the Madina Covenant there was no state machinery to enforce the law, no police and no regular military, and not even an established judicial system. All social life was voluntary.

This changed when the Prophet died and especially when peoples in distant places embraced Islam, which led to the growth of power centers that eventually evolved into independent empires based on principles that were un-Islamic from the perspective of the original community of the Madina Covenant.”

Islam therefore advocates a progressive politics rooted in community governance, and based fundamentally on grassroots empowerment and the voluntary collective practice of community members. The Qur’an never makes reference to the idea of a ‘state’ as understood in modern conventional terms, even when discussing legal recourse, but instead addresses this voluntary community. Thus, we see a broad metaphysical conception of khalafa, where God tells the angels about the creation of the first man: “I am putting a khalifa on Earth.” (2:30)

Khalifa is often translated as ‘vicegerent’, denoting a representative of a higher authority. But a better term in English is ‘trustee’, conveying the idea of human beings carrying the amana or trust to be ‘caretakers’ of the Earth. Everyone of us is a ‘khalifa’ of God, the objective of which is the establishment of social justice: “We sent aforetime Our Messengers with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice.” (57:25)

In addition, the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions are replete with clearly delineated principles of just community governance, such as: mutual consultation between elected leaders and communities; freedom of speech and association, including the right to dissent against a ruling authority; freedom of religious belief; equality of access to means of economic production; equitable distribution and investment of public resources for sustainable development; responsibility to the most deprived classes through various social welfare policies; policymaking based on knowledge and research; compassion and flexibility in implementation of penal injunctions.

In summary, then, we are collectively responsible for working together as custodians of the Earth in God’s Name. This trust extends into the social sphere as a collective duty of the community. Islamic politics entails that communities should govern themselves, and that we are all responsible to cooperate with our fellow citizens (our “brothers in faith, or in humanity”, in the words of the fourth Caliph, Hazrat Ali) in creating and maintaining just, compassionate and accountable social institutions from the ground-up.

Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a bestselling author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Crisis of Civilization: How Climate, Oil, Food, Finance, Terror, and Warfare will Change the World (Pluto, 2010). He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and has authored four other books on terrorism and foreign policy, including most recently The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006). He has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Sussex, where he has taught contemporary history and political theory.

About the author

Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a bestselling author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Crisis of Civilization: How Climate, Oil, Food, Finance, Terror, and Warfare will Change the World (Pluto, 2010). He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and has authored four other books on terrorism and foreign policy, including most recently The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006). He has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Sussex, where he has taught contemporary history and political theory.

20 Comments

Mohammad Uz-Zaman

The economic crisis is certainly one problem that ‘they’ can’t pin onto Muslims…can they? Maybe I should take that back, few clever men pinned Saddam with WMDs, linked Saddam with Al-Qaeda, and despite the overwhelming antipathy towards the War on Terror we see a rise of far-right politics across Europe, using Muslims as the scapegoat. A crisis of civilisations? No. Only a crisis of a civilisation.

Whilst I would agree that the Islamic state has been distorted and hyped up (in the wrong way) by the government and media in contemporary Britain, I cannot take Abdullahi an-Naim’s argument that the Islamic state is an innovation. It does not correlate with the evidence we find from the early days of Islam. Yes, we should all be custodians on this earth, but a just and peaceful Islamic state requires an actual leader and system.

Perhaps the image of an Islamic State isn’t very good because in the Modern Era (lets call that from 1750 onwards) the examples of such states haven’t been very good examples?

Look at two:

The Ottoman Empire – resisted the printing press for a century after its invention and never really industrialised as was too inward looking and reactionary conservative.

The Islamic Republic of Iran – is actually worse then the Shah’s regime ever was – quite an achievement. Religious Totalitarianism enforced with gun and the Koran is surely not the way forward for the Islamic World?

To ‘distort’ and ‘hype up’ the image of an Islamic State all the media has to do is show what the Iranian Gov’t does to its own people.

Hello,
I would agree that there is no state which I can confidently call “Islamic”, because no country adheres fully to the universal values that were put in place in the time of Prophet Mohammed. Thus, i would prefer to call them “Muslim” countries, as opposed to Islamic states.

However, it is especially remarks like “…is actually worse then the Shah’s regime ever was – quite an achievement. Religious Totalitarianism enforced with gun and the Koran” which are huge generalisations.

Firstly, I really don’t think we’re in a position to be commenting on which is worse- the horrors of the Shah were one of a kind, and that’s what caused millions upon millions upon millions of citizens to revolt. Even British media 30 years ago could not be biased against that fact.

And by the way, it is this same media which plasters the face of Neda Soltan (the Iran protest victim) on every single mainstream newspaper daily … and ignores the brutal murder of Marwa El-Sherbini which occured during the same period, in a EUROPEAN court, much closer to home. It’s this kind of distortion, and this kind of hype, which I am referring to.

I can’t say I’ve studied the Ottomans in any enormous detail, but I can say that it is not interpreted by modern historians as an having been an official Islamic state with a Caliphate. And I’ve been to Istanbul and the advancements they made there are astounding and the science and cultural advances are beyond any inventions in contemporary Britain at the time. It certainly wasn’t “inward-looking” or wouldn’t have expanded as much as it did! Any one can tell you that much!

Eh?! Oh my gosh my mind just spasmed reading your post. First of all the ‘Modern Age’ has rarely ever been considered as anything other than post-world war 2. The fact you seem to think the Enlightenment (an ironic term considering the completely ‘unenlightened’ violence used to achieve its aims) is an apt place to discuss the ‘Modern Age’ is well, laughable to put it nicely.

I really am not going to go into the history of the great, great Ottoman Empire (we all know it became decadent towards the end of its lifespan, due to a mixture of treacherous elements and the usual Western intervention), but the most BASIC point you have failed to consider is that there is not a SINGLE Islamic country in the world. This is unanimously agreed upon by Muslims. We have Muslim-majority countries, which is clearly not the same as having an ‘Islamic’ country.

As you seem to consider the idea of an Islamic state so repugnant, I must query where you believe the solution lies? Is it in the ‘great’ Western invention of democracy? Please…I had to resist a particularly violent gag reflex just then. And on the subject of what ‘people do to their own country’, I suggest you pause a moment to think of the greatest genocide ever committed in the history of mankind – that of the indigenous population of the Americas. Of course it should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with history that the world’s so-called greatest democracy, the USA, was founded on the genocide of its native population.

But judging by the name ‘common humanist’, (which by the by actually means nothing), maybe you believe a godless world is the direction towards a better world? Well, once again I would urge you to pause a moment and consider the world’s first constitutionally defined ‘atheist’ state, the USSR. 20 million of its own people killed was it? Ah well, I think I’ve suggested enough further reading for you already.

Modern Era – depending on the historian you talk to – from the end of the Renaissance we have the early modern era from 1700 onwards which runs through to again, depending on the historian 1850 or 1900. Later Modern is what’s left.

“”The fact you seem to think the Enlightenment (an ironic term considering the completely ‘unenlightened’ violence used to achieve its aims) is an apt place to discuss the ‘Modern Age’ is well, laughable to put it nicely””

Aren’t you a nice chap? The delineation of eras have dealt with. The Enlightenment, much like, say the Islamic Golden Age or the Renaissance, was a period of tremendous achievement – both good and bad. Do you discount the Islamic Golden Age because of the violence that accompanied it? No, good. Neither do I. Same goes for the Enlightenment.

Ottoman Empire – started well but after 1565 starts to decline and this accelerates after 1700. I use it as an example because it is an example where religion was used an excuse by conservative, reactionary elements and vested interests to resist change. The resistance to the printing press is a good example.

You say that it was brought down by Western intervention, it would be more accurate to say that the contest for the Mediterranean and its attempts to conquer the Balkans and southern eastern Europe crippled It and as the 1700s and 1800s progressed the Ottoman economy lacked capital to industrialise in the same way as the other great powers of the time. (The same thing happened to the Spanish Empire).

“”As you seem to consider the idea of an Islamic state so repugnant, I must query where you believe the solution lies? Is it in the ‘great’ Western invention of democracy? Please…I had to resist a particularly violent gag reflex just then””

Democracy is about having accountable, responsible Government that makes laws through the election of officials/Parliamentarians. This makes you gag? Even the Iranians have a veneer of accountability, havily managed democracy that is now routinely rigged – albeit clumsily

How would you want the will of the people implemented? What would be your solution?

“”But judging by the name ‘common humanist’, (which by the by actually means nothing)””

Why have you chosen to be rude?

Marxism/Leninism/etc were most certainly a type of religion and yes both the USSR and PRC have committed vast acts of mass murder and I don’t think any sane person would advocate Communism as a valid method of societal organisation.

Hmmmm I must say I am ever so slightly impressed you managed to respond. Some points I’ll address very briefly;
Iran, well frankly I couldn’t care less. ‘Later Modern’….?…I won’t ask. ‘Islamic Golden Age’ – ah yes, when Muslims, in the name of religion, saved manuscripts from those savages looting wildly in the Christian world – hardly a parallel with the godless Englightenment. A famous Islamic saying; ‘rabbi zidni ilma’.

However, I’ll address the one point I believe resides in the realm of ‘plausible’ (which I use lightly here).

‘Democracy is about having accountable, responsible Government that makes laws through the election of officials/Parliamentarians.’

This point is complementary to how an Islamic State would run; essentially the leader would be chosen by the people. Yet, to suggest this is the meaning of ‘democracy’ in our age is inaccurate. Democracy in this day and age means something along the lines of;
– whichever candidates receive the greatest backing from the financial institutions will most likely gain power
– it’s a people’s vote only in the sense they can choose between two or three candidates (which in a stroke of sheer irony, in its parallels with an autocracy, these ‘democartic’ candidates are usually dynsatical), all with heavy institutionalised backing
– the idea anyone could just get up and run for office, is well, a plain lie.

Clearly then ‘democracy’ is a loaded term, with some obvious examples; it gives people the freedom to drink as much as they please; copulate as frequently as animals; wear as little as they choose, and have the freedom to insult religion (which in this last instance, is apparently no longer ‘democracy’ if the reverse happens).

The Western invention of democracy in this day and age is characterised by a mixture of interventionist politics and greed. Please explain, when will this great USA finally let Egypt become a democracy? Worried their interests in the region may suffer under a ‘democratic’ Egypt? In fact, we could extend that to include virtually all Arab countries, which are run by sell-outs by and large, installed by America to serve Western interests.

I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that.

The Common Humanist

This is a response to Mido below – apologies but there is not a reply box at the end of that text box.

So, so you don’t have the desire or intellectual skills to discuss Iran or historical periodicity. No worries. Your choice ‘an all.

It is undeniable (and yet still some neo-conservatives and right wing Islamists do so try) to ague that BOTH the early Islamic Caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire did indeed preserve classical civilisations major texts. All power to Bagdhad and Constantinople as my relatives were (Probably) Danish or Scandinavian war band types at the time.

“”””””This point is complementary to how an Islamic State would run; essentially the leader would be chosen by the people. Yet, to suggest this is the meaning of ‘democracy’ in our age is inaccurate. Democracy in this day and age means something along the lines of;
– whichever candidates receive the greatest backing from the financial institutions will most likely gain power
– it’s a people’s vote only in the sense they can choose between two or three candidates (which in a stroke of sheer irony, in its parallels with an autocracy, these ‘democartic’ candidates are usually dynsatical), all with heavy institutionalised backing
– the idea anyone could just get up and run for office, is well, a plain lie”””””

So you accept a leader has to be chosen by common consent. Good. Progress beyond theocracy.

Deomcracy is a two star type of Govt. Everything else is one star admittedly (theocracy, monarchy, despotism).

What I find the height of arrogance from all sides is the idea that (so disproved in Indonesia and Malaysia (and elsewhere)) is that somehow majority Muslim countries can’t handle self determination and democracy (in the true sense , as opposed to the Algerian Islamist sense of one man, one vote, once or else!) This includes old fashioned Western colonial idiocy but also the very very similar Islamist approach that in effect is not so very different. Admittedly the Islamist approach is the most current and violent but you get the idea.

Is democracy a loaded term? Not really. It is a very broad term to be sure but hardly the stereotype ypu porray.

Accountable, replaceable Govt is never a waste of time and debates about how funded, how populated and how organised are the stuff of life. ‘Thems the brakes’ as my Grandad used to say’. Quite so G, quite so.

You have a cynical attitude to deomcracy, I have cynical attitude to theocracy. Maybe a middle ground somewhere?????

Notes:
For the purposes of discussion:
Islam: Noble world religion that has given reason , law, science, art understanding and structure to the world since the 7th Century.

Islamism: narrow, right wing political interpretation of religion that usually brings death and bodybags to where-ever it rocks up. A plague on its house.

Afloat

First of all- on a technical point; the Ottoman Empire wasn’t a state.

Moving on.

As has been indicated above, in recent history, no truly Islamic state has found its way in to existence. Many attempts have messed up. However, this doesn’t mean we should scrap the idea, for with such reasoning, we may as well scrap the Idea of international law as well. And Human Rights. Not as if both concepts have any consistent standing in the world.

Anyway, you seem to be a green “revolutionary”? And with your reference to the Shah, a semi-monarchist too I presume? Rich kid from North Tehran with the “Where’s my vote” stickers on your Mercedes?

Although the Iranian administration has its faults, MAJOR ones, to claim the Shah days were better is madness to say the least. I guess you’re upset the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now BP) isn’t stealing the country’s oil anymore? Or that the Savak and the Shah’s torture cells are no longer in operation? I feel your pain.

Sorry, just to clarify; my original point being that you can’t really align the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Iran- both very separate entities- so as to indirectly put down the future creation of an Islamic state.

The Ottoman Empire was indeed a type of state. An Imperial one to be sure but one with a civil service, judiciary, military and various types of leaders over the centuries of its very distinguished history.

Afloat, I agree with much of this:

“no truly Islamic state has found its way in to existence. Many attempts have messed up. However, this doesn’t mean we should scrap the idea, for with such reasoning, we may as well scrap the Idea of international law as well. And Human Rights. Not as if both concepts have any consistent standing in the world”.

If there can be an Islamic state that is democratic, embraces the UN Declaration on Human Rights -0 and this absolutely must include guarantees on the rights of women, ethnic minorities etc then fantastic. All power to it. My point was that the image of Islamic States – as they see themselves – is terrible because they often behave terribly to their own citizens – witness Iran and Sudan for example. I suspect people are inferring that I have some beef with Muslims or Islam. Not at all as it happens (Although am not a monotheist myself).

I tend to treat religion as a historical force (being an amateur historian at heart) so am pretty dis-passionate about it.

“”Anyway, you seem to be a green “revolutionary”? And with your reference to the Shah, a semi-monarchist too I presume? Rich kid from North Tehran with the “Where’s my vote” stickers on your Mercedes? “”

Am a Brit in Yorkshire. If I were Iranian I would certainly be wondering why the Govt had stolen the election and resorted to extreme brutality when there really was no need. So Iran now has a faux President and the Regimes legitimacy is ruined. And all to save Mahmoud Ahmadinejad??
Hardly worth the effort. The Shah should have never have been installed by the West – a disaster for all concerned. It was a great thing that he was deposed. However, the Iranian Govt that succeeded it has over the years become as bad or maybe even worse – especially when recent events are considered. Like I said, quite an achievement when you consider all the brutality is quite quite unnecessary in Iran. The Iranian Govt now brings shame to the religion of Islam (which is a terrible shame considering the many achievements and richness of the history of Persia and Iran).

“”Although the Iranian administration has its faults, MAJOR ones, to claim the Shah days were better is madness to say the least. I guess you’re upset the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now BP) isn’t stealing the country’s oil anymore? Or that the Savak and the Shah’s torture cells are no longer in operation? I feel your pain””

Glad you realise it has major faults. I wasn’t claiming the Shahs days were better – see above – do try to read what is written and perhaps infer less??? The Shahs thugs are long gone, thankfully. However the IRG has a lovely range of cells and many ernest young men who know their way round a soldering iron (Would you classify the IRG as a major fault?)

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Dr Ahmed, I do agree partly with the above comment. A system and a leader would help. And although the idea of a sovereign state may be a recent innovation, it is a political reality we have to deal with none the less.

A great article still. I agree completely with Dr Ahmed in that shouting and screaming for the establishment of an Islamic state in contemporary Britain is on the whole a huge waste of time; if you want to bring about a positive change, it’s far more important to get engaged in to UK politics.

One of the biggest problems any future Islamic state would have is who’s interpretation of Shari’a would be implemented. The models used currently in the Islamic world are a bit of a mess to say the least. Context is lacking entirely. Aside from being morally bankrupt, the Saudi’s for a start couldn’t understand a metaphor if it hit them in the face.

On a slightly separate point, what’s interesting is that in the treaty of Medina, the word Ummah was used not just to describe a coalition of muslims, but also non muslims. Quite apart from the modern use of the word.

Although the Prophet may have used the term ummah to include the non Muslims, it does not, however, mean that the concept of Ummah is not only employed for the Muslims. In specific instances it could be used for both Muslims and non Muslims as mentioned by the mufassirun. But in most cases it is used when discussing Islamic fraternity and brotherhood based on faith in God and His Messenger.

Dear oh dear ‘humanist’. Incidentally, do you even know what that means? I doubt it.

I believe it’s time to educate the rabble. I am amazed as to how people write when they clearly have not read, or indeed have only read snippets from the internet. As any respectable academic will tell you, Wikipedia is not divine revelation.

Firstly, who are you to comment on the validity of the Ottomans as an authentic Caliphate? Do you even understand the history, and the prerequisites? Understand the intricacies of Ottoman history, as well as the Abbassids that they replaced, and I might say you are allowed to write regarding this subject. However, your comments clearly show your gross lack of understanding. You need to attend some Islamic Shari’a classes as a matter of the greatest import.

I need not hammer the point in any further than the brother, Mido, has. Simply, you are inept. Read before you think, and think before you write.

I really good piece! This notion that Muslims need a Islamic “state” to do good works is weak and the article demonstrates this well. We as British Muslims can equally do what we need to do, to for fill our Islamic duties and our communal duties. Nice one!

About Us

Reclaim Your Stage:
The Platform is a groundbreaking blog that provides current affairs and cultural commentary. Our pieces offer challenging opinions from a range of spectrums; that’s why we love hosting a platform for them.